Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18
drones to a green fleet, i expect similar policies to continue for my former colleague chuck hagel to be confirmed, hopefully as early as next week. for all these reasons i have long been a supporter of renewable fuels, and i encourage the further development of an industry that is important, both to our national security as well as to our farm economy. whether we're talking food or water or energy security, let me put it this way. in the future, more crops in the field can mean fewer soldiers in the field. at the same time, as important as our defense capabilities are, we also need to rebalance for the other free d's. the u.s. today spends more on defense than on diplomacy, democracy and developments all put together. meanwhile, in the past year, china has more than doubled its investment in developing new agricultural technologies. those are the kinds of farsighted policies that are enabling china to emerge as a world power, in which we, frankly, need to get back to. as we shift our focus and our resources towards smarter, more constructive forms of international interaction, it'
are not willing to enter into an agreement for consideration of the hagel nomination. therefore, i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 10. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, department of defense, charles timothy hagel of nebraska to be secretary of defense. the presiding officer: without objection, the motion to proceed is agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president, i send a cloture motion to the desk anded ask the clerk -- and ask the clerk to report. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the rules of 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on nomination of charles timothy hagel of nebraska to be secretary of defense, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from -- the majority leader is recognized. without objection, the reading of the names is dispensed with. mr. reid: this is the first time in the history of our country that a presidential nominee
-level officers and enlisted that are so important to the leadership of our military and chuck hagel's leadership and commitment will be critical to that task. i have met with chuck hagel privately, i've asked him tough questions about iran and israel. i'm satisfied on those points that he will advise the president in according to with -- in accord with those policies but even more important i am struck by his passion, the intensity of his commitment to our men and women in uniform. his caring about them is indicated in so many ways. spontaneously and strongly in his testimony, as well as his private conversations. he will make sure that sexual assault in the military, the epidemic and scourge of rape and assault against men and women who serve and sacrifice for this country will be stopped, that there will be, in fact, zero tolerance not only in word but in deed. and his viewing, for example, of the documentary "invisible war," his understanding that this kind of misconduct is an outrage never to be even implicitly condoned and to be treated as a criminal offense, the most extreme kind of predat
voted on defense secretary nomination of chuck hagel by approving the nomination in a partyline vote. 14 democrats and 11 republicans. before the vote, senators discuss the nominee and the reason for opposing or supporting his nomination. it begins with committee chairman karl levin. >> the committee meets today to consider the nomination of former senator chuck hagel to serve as the next secretary of defense. he -- we received the nomination through which the. we held a hearing 12 days ago. senator hagel has provided the personal and financial information required by the committee. he has received letters from the director of the office of government ethics, and the acting defense department general counsel. certifying that he meets the ethics and conflict of interest standards. he has responded to our advanced policy questions and/or and the questions for the record, for these reasons i believe the time has come for the committee to act on this nomination. senator hagel has received broad support from a wide array of senior statesman in defense foreign policy organizations. at our janu
on television. today in a 58-40 cloture voted. they blocked chuck hagel being the sex -- secretary of defense. next the hour long debate on the nomination. they said they will not vote for cloture today, i think it's too bad. there's been more than enough time to read the additional speeches that have been coming in. the argument raced beyond that i know has do with the payment an equity fund that was received has been fully explained. as a highly reputable fund that senator hagel was an adviser to like many other reputable people. i think the continuation what amounts to filibuster is too bad when there's a secretary of defense who is leafing to go back to california. we need to have our new secretary of defense in place given the circumstances in this world. we have a budget crisis in this country, our scwesser is confronting us. that's sequester will have a damaging effect on the deference department, on the men and women in uniform. and on the programs, the equipment, the training that they need to be ready for any kind of contingency. so the delay in having a vote on cloture, to me is a
will resume consideration of the nomination of senator hagel to be secretary of defense. that vote will occur tomorrow morning. mr. president, in less than two hours, our country will be without a secretary of defense. at a time when we have a war going on in afghanistan, we have about 70,000 troops there, we have a nuclear weapon that was detonated in north korea a few days ago -- they're threatening, as they have publicly on other occasions, but after this bomb was put off -- set off, that they were designee it to attack us -- that they were doing it to attack us. that the situation in iran with all of their very, very militaristic statements against us. all over the world america is involved in matters dealing with our military. mr. president, i met the night before last with the man that killed osama bin laden in my office talking about his 16-year career as a seal, the places he went around the world protecting the interests of the united states. it wasn't just in afghanistan, not in pakistan, all over the world. to think that we have now in the senate a situation where we're going to wi
the qualifications of chuck hagel. i served with chuck hagel. he is a conservative republican representing the ultra liberal state of nebraska. he served with distinction in the united states senate as a senator, served on the foreign relations committee, armed services committee, intelligence committee. he's a man of quality, a man of courage. not just being able to come and give a speech here on the senate floor. during the vietnam war, he volunteered to go into combat. that's what he chose to do. because he thought it was the patriotic thing to do for his country, our country. and his family felt that way. he and his brother went togeth together. they didn't go to push pencils. they carried rifles, had strapped to their sides grenad grenades. he was wounded twice. he's an enlisted man. he didn't walk around ordering people to do things. people were ordering him around what to do. except when it came to his brother, who he saved his brother's life in combat in vietnam. and they are filibustering him. that's what they're doing. i'm going to go call chuck hagel when i finish here and say, i'm sorry,
. and that is what we will be voting on now. later on, there will be a vote on whether to confirm senator hagel. the vote now is whether to bring this debate to an end. i hope we will so we can get on to the nomination vote. i yield the floor. i think it's noon and time for a vote. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from oklahoma has 30 seconds remaining. the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: let me say that we -- everything has been said, not everyone has said it. however, i would like to make sure that everyone understands that the actual statements that were made by the former senator hagel in terms of the relationship of our country with israel and iran prior to the time that he was nominated, because many of those statements were changed at that time. i encourage the no vote on cloture. the presiding officer: the time is expired. under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to br
. on december of 2012, senator chuck hagel was nominee to become the secretary of defense. when he was asked about the outgoing secretary leon panetta's comments about budget sequestration that would be disastrous to national defense, the senator replied as follows. the defense department, i think in many ways, has been bloated. the defense department has gotten everything it has wanted. the last 10 years and more. we have taken priorities, dollars, programs, policies out of the state department. and another of other departments and put them in defense. the abuse and waste and fraud is astounding. .. with him or her >> or something like that. it was obvious that in some places had accumulated over the decades that is why secretary gates started the efficiency initiative that i was a part of to improve performance and requisition system. in parallel, we had absorbed for madrid $87 billion budget cut in a way wear we said we could still accomplish the mission of the nation speaking to the fact we could do what the country needed with less. but today we cannot do that strategy. so we have accom
and leadership. one, do you support or oppose chuck hagel as secretary of defense? two, with your evaluation of thomas ricks criticism of american general since world war ii except for you a general petraeus? [laughter] >> , see brilliant as his wife is. i just finished this book. it's painful to read about generous he criticized because it's correct. you see it and go i'm guilty of that. and we had shortcomings of not being strategically enough minded. you focus on your job, tactical part of the nation and not think in a big strategic problem you're trying to solve. the criticism is not hiring enough people. we don't fired generals. that may or may not be a good criticism. it's certainly worth paying attention to, but it's a useful thing to throw out there. so what was the first one? chuck hagel. if chuck hagel will take the job right now, god bless him. whoever secretary of defense, they are going to go through this constricting budget, implement things like females in combat, which i agree with, but in lamenting will be hard. something will come to head with iran in the next four years ma
-- hagel, some of the things he wants to do is to turn this back over to the military so that at least it's not embroiled in secrecy at the very beginning. we don't know anything about it. so at least it will be out many the open a bit which i think is a good thing. >> what was the level, if any, of petraeus in the writing of the book, and what is his reaction after being published? >> well, you know, i interviewed about 110 people for this book including petraeus. one thing about petraeus, he has always been very solicitous of reporters, including me, i have to admit. now, he has two motives, and everybody knows it. one is he kind of likes hanging around with reporters. but second, he sees it as what the military would call information operations or, as the french less euphemistically call it, propaganda. in other words, this is a way of getting the word out. you, and, you know, it works. the thing about petraeus i remember, i mean, i can tell you as a reporter there were four-star generals in the years before petraeus, you know, you'd go meet with them, and you'd come away thinking, god
and leadership. and the second is do you support chuck hagel as secretary of defense and what is your evaluation of the criticisms of american general since world war ii. except for you and general petraeus. [laughter] >> you know, it's painful to read about general is being criticized because a lot of it is correct. you see it, and you say, oh, that's me, i am guilty of that. we had shortcomings of not being strategically enough minded, you know, you get very focused on her job, your tactical part of the mission, not thinking of the big strategic problem that you are trying to solve. that may or may not be a good criticism, but it's certainly worth paying attention to. but it is a useful thing to throw out there. what was the first one? >> okay. >> if chuck hagel will take the job right now, god bless them. whoever will be the secretary of defense, they will go through this constricting budget, they will implement things in combat. implementing it is going to be hard. something is going to come to ahead with iran during this for years, just mathematically. it will be a very difficult for years.
was devoted to becoming an astronaut to the position of secretary of state. chuck hagel is a wonderful nomination. the criticism of him is silly, i believe. people are throwing that around. it is embarrassing. embarrassing to see accusations like that. if you go back to eric miller's book, he talked about the israeli lobby on many occasions. so i don't quite know what the debate is all about. i think that it will disorders go away because it doesn't make a lot of sense. the trees to care about himself, giving adultery a very bad name. but what was obama thinking. but what was obama thinking with intelligence issues that we would have to grapple with. i could not think of a better scenario than having david petraeus at the cia. that's not what he had in mind in 1947. he did not want to put in the hands of military policymakers. what the cia was created for was to challenge military intelligence. the cia has done its job correctly and that is what they have done on things such as arms control or vietnam, for that matter. what needs to be done, and let me just check the time to, we don't
your experience in research, what do you think of the reaction against chuck hagel's being secretary of defense, a man whose clearly reluctant to send soldiers into harm's way having been there himself. >> the question was about the former senator chuck hagel, a man with two purple hearts, shrapnel in his test, and all the controversy over him. without weighing in on him per se. i like the idea of people who served in uniform having a say in policy decisions in which men in uniform and women in uniform are sent into harm's way, as a general thought. i don't have a position on whether he should be secretary of defense. i do think it's interesting, and the last three or four weeks i've wished my show was up and running so we could talk about this at some length, but i think it's interesting, john kerry, chuck hagel, two men with, i think, five purple hearts between them, and both of them, although, they votedded for iraq and afghanistan, can't say they are completely doves, although, maybe john kerry didn't vote for iraq. i can't keep it straight, but in any case, what it does, and we
on american history tv on c-span3. >> and now former senator chuck hagel expresses his thoughts on the war in iraq and says that more should have been done leading up to the war to determine whether it was the right action to take. he also examines america's position in the world and its future from an economic and environmental perspective. this is just over an hour. >> honored to have an opportunity to be with you and in this house and your guests and those who believe in a better world and how to make a better world because as i look around this room, i see so many people who have devoted their careers and their lives to making a better world. and to all of you, thank you. we, all of us in the global community, appreciate it. and most of you are cometting to make those -- continuing to make those same kinds of contributions. nice to see you again, thank you very much, and to some of our current ambassadors who
. senator hagel. later today i'm going to be talking to john brennan. can you give a brief assessment of the two gentle and the capability and the readiness to assume the positions? >> yes, certainly. obviously that's something that the committees now have the opportunity evaluate. but in my view, both of them are outstanding individuals that have a great deal of experience and capability to be able to perform in an outstanding fashion in each of their jobs. senator hagel is someone who, you know, served in the military, worked up here on the hill. understand the issues that are involve there had. i think can be a very effective leader at the pentagon. john brennan is somebody i worked with the at the director of cia and continued to work with in this capacity. i found him to be responsible about how we can effectively conduct operations again al qaeda and against those that would attack this country. he is -- as somebody said, a straight shooter. somebody who, you know, gives you his best opinion, he doesn't play games. he is somebody who i think, you know, can honestly represent the
. but sometimes i read in the newspapers that republicans are filibustering, for example senator hagel as if a majority of republicans or a majority of the senate intended to deny the nomination to senator hagel through a filibuster, when in fact what most of the republicans were saying was the nomination of the former senator has come to the floor only two days ago. we have senators who got legitimate questions about the nomination and we'd like some time to discuss it. in that case we were forced to have a vote on a motion by the majority leader to cut off debate on thursday before the recess even though the democratic leadership and the white house had been told by republican senators, enough of us, that if we voted after the recess there would be plenty of votes to make sure that the president's nominee had an up-or-down vote, as we have done throughout history in the united states senate. for whatever reason, the majority leader and the white house felt that they had to push through a vote and then went into a large complaint that republicans are filibustering the president's nomi
quick questions. thank you for your service and leadership. one, do you support or oppose chuck hagel as secretary of defense? to, what is your violation of thomas ricks criticism of american generals since world war ii except for you and general petraeus? [laughter] >> altaic the second verse. it's painful to read about generals being criticized because a lot of it's correct. you see it and say that's me, i'm guilty of that. we had shortcomings of not being strategically enough minded. you know, you get focused on your job, your tactical part of the mission and not digging the big strategic problem you're trying to solve. one is not firing enough people. we don't fire and not generals. .. you know, from the senate, his time in vietnam is useful because it gives you a context. the most important thing is if he and president obama are a good team, that is what matters. though much worry about his policy positions one way or another because he will be a policy maker. the president's policies will go but the fact that the field that they can be a good team, to me that is the important th
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18